[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5

Sat Jun 8 22:54:07 EDT 2013

OK

--srs (iPad)

On 09-Jun-2013, at 7:59, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> +1
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Kerry Brown [kerry at kdbsystems.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 9:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
> 
> +1
>  
> Kerry Brown
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Sent: June-08-13 3:26 PM
> To: Deirdre Williams
> Cc: Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Catherine Roy
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
>  
> 
> This looks great, what do others think?
>  
> Sala
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is the text we are suggesting.
>  
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) 
> <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>  
> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5.
>  
> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" 
> <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>  
> Deirdre
>  
>  
> 
> On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the recently proposed changes.
>  
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>  
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent.  If we were
> in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment.  I suggest
> we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised
> sentence.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams
> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to
> > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying
> > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's
> > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns.
> >
> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and
> >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier
> >>>Foundation (EFF)
> >>><https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
> >>> >
> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
> > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights
> > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of
> > DRM in HTML5."
> >>> >
> >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement
> >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter"
> >>><https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Deirdre,
> >>
> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we
> >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like
> >> :
> >>
> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
> >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights
> >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of
> >> DRM in HTML5."
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Catherine
> >>
> >> --
> >> Catherine Roy
> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence:
> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has
> >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital
> >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5.
> >> to this:
> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5
> >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly
> >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
> >> Deirdre
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has
> >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more
> >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending
> >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having
> >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this
> >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical
> >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media,
> >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I
> >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best
> >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work
> >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying
> >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it
> >>> has filed this FO.
> >>>
> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a
> >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by
> >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the
> >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we
> >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to
> >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it
> >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of
> >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on
> >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the
> >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and
> >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this
> >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under
> >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action
> >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a
> >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to
> >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML
> >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it
> >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Catherine
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre.
> >>>
> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement.  I tried to make the
> >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had
> >>> attracted the most disagreement.  That left an opening sentence saying IGC
> >>> supports the EFF statement.  2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5
> >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs
> >>> discussed on the list.  3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement.  I know
> >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point.  After a lot of to&fro
> >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something
> >>> simple.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more.
> >>>
> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering
> >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example
> >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation).
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Adam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deird
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130609/e1ed3c73/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t